A reality check By Karel Daele Striking the Legitimate Balance between HostState Sovereignty and Investor Needs Perspectives from and regarding Africa Panel Enhancing Business Opportunities in Africa The Role Reality and Future of AfricaRelated ID: 715271
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "How Africa has fared in investment dispu..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
How Africa has fared in investment disputes. A reality check.
By Karel Daele“Striking the Legitimate Balance between Host-State Sovereignty and Investor Needs: Perspectives from and regarding Africa” Panel“Enhancing Business Opportunities in Africa: The Role, Reality and Future of Africa-Related Arbitration”, Atlanta International Arbitration Society Conference
2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide2
Forty-five Contracting States (83.5%)
Three States signed but did not ratify the ICSID Convention (5.5%): Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau and NamibiaSix non-Contracting States (11%): Angola, Djibouti, Eritrea, Equatorial Guinea, Libya and
South Africa
1. CONTRACTING STATES ICSID
- Atlanta
2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide3
2.
MAP ICSID
MEMBERSHIPSlide4
While Africa accounts for 28% of ICSID’s membership, it accounts for 23% of its disputes: 113 disputes on a total of
487 70% of the Contracting States (32) have been respondent to one or more ICSID cases 30% of the Contracting States (13) have not been respondent:
Benin, Botswana,
Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Sao Tome & Principe, Sierra Leone, Somalia,
Swaziland and Zambia
South Africa and Equatorial Guinea (non-Contracting States) have been respondent to ICSID Additional Facility proceedings3. ICSID RESPONDENTS
2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide5
4.
MAP
ICSID
RESPONDENTS Slide6
Forty-one pending cases of which
thirty-nine arbitrations and two conciliationsSeventy-six concluded cases
of which seventy arbitrations and six
conciliations Of the seventy concluded arbitrations:
5.
OUTCOME OF ICSID CASES
2-3 November 2014 - Atlanta
33%
26%
26%
12
%
3%Slide7
More
investor claims are settled than upheld or dismissedThe number of claims upheld equals the number of claims rejectedWorldwide results (UNCTAD
2014 Report):
43% dismissed, 31% upheld, 26% settled
Only 25% of the claims against African States have been upheld;
72% of the claims are either rejected, settled or discontinued 6. OUTCOME OF ICSID CASES
2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide8
Twelve States (26%) have been found
liable: Once (8): Burundi, Gabon, Guinea, Liberia, Senegal, Seychelles, Togo and ZimbabweTwice (3): Central African Republic, Congo Republic and TanzaniaOn
three
occasions (1): Egypt Sixteen
States (34%) have been respondent but not found liable (either because the claims were settled, rejected or discontinued): Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, DRC, Gambia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa and Tunisia;
7. LIABILITY
2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide9
2-3 November 2014 - Atlanta
7. LIABILITYSlide10
Twenty-three States are involved in pending disputes and are potentially
liable8. POTENTIAL LIABILITY
2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide11
8.
POTENTIAL LIABILITY Slide12
Damages exceeding 100 million (1):
Chemin de Fer v Gabon (160)Damages 50 to 100 million (2): Waguih v Egypt (74.5); Siag v Egypt (settled; 74)
Damages 10
to 50 million (4): Togo Electr
v Togo (39); Southern Pacific v Egypt (settled; 22.5);
Wena Hotel v Egypt (19.5); AGIP v Rep. Congo (12)Damages 5 to 10 million (5): American Manufacturing v Egypt (9); Funnekotter v Zimbabwe (8); Liberian Timber v Liberia (8); CDC v Seychelles (6.7) ; AHS Niger v Niger (5.8)Damages 1 to 5 million (3): Middle East Cement v Egypt (3.9); Lahoud v DRC (1.7); Goetz v Burundi I (1.2); Damages 0 to 1 million (5) :
SOABI v Senegal (0.6); Atlantic Triton v Guinea (0.3);
Benvenuti
v Rep Congo (0.1); RSM v CAR (0.02); Biwater v Tanzania (0)
9.
DAMAGES AWARDED
(USD)
2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide13
9. DAMAGES AWARDED (USD)
2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide14
Over 75% of the claim awarded (2):
CDC v Seychelles (100%); Togo Electr v Togo (95%)Over 50% of the claim awarded (1): Funnekotter v Zimbabwe (70%)
Over 25% of the claim awarded (5):
American Manufacturing v Egypt (42%); Atlantic Triton v Guinea (35%); Waguih v Egypt (34%); Siag v Egypt (settled; 34%); Wena
Hotel v Egypt (30%)
Less than 25% of the claim awarded (7): Southern Pacific v Egypt (settled; 18%); Middle East Cement v Egypt (8%); Lahoud v DRC (8%); Goetz v Burundi I (5%); SOABI v Senegal (14%); RSM v CAR (0.0002%); Biwater v Tanzania (0%)10. RATE of SUCCESS (USD)
2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide15
10. RATE of SUCCESS (USD)
2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide16
Karel Daele
Partner International ArbitrationTel: +44 20 7440 7060Fax: +44 20 7831 3487E-mail: karel.daele@mishcon.comMishcon de ReyaSummit House12 Red Lion Square
London
WC1R 4QD
11. THANK YOU
2-3 November 2014 - Atlanta